Re: version 5.1.6.2
HI, We have been running about 1 week with this version - no problems so far. Jane Jane Bamberger IS Department Bassett Healthcare 607-547-4784 -Original Message- From: Muthyam Reddy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 11:28 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: version 5.1.6.2 ** High Priority ** kind men, We'r planning to upgrade TSM from 5.1.0 to 5.1.6.2 this weekend.Have anyone experiened problems with 5.1.6.2. please write ur experiences. thanks in adv regds /mani + This electronic mail transmission contains information from Joy Mining Machinery which is confidential, and is intended only for the use of the proper addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify us immediately at the return address on this transmission, or by telephone at (724) 779-4500, and delete this message and any attachments from your system. Unauthorized use, copying, disclosing, distributing, or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this transmission is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. +
Re: 5.1.6.2 is out
Hi, I usually get a call back within 1 hour - and then they follow up almost daily - I have never been dropped from the radar! Jane Jane Bamberger IS Department Bassett Healthcare 607-547-4784 -Original Message- From: Remeta, Mark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 11:09 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 5.1.6.2 is out How's this one, I call on Thursday February the 6th and get a pmr number. The following morning a level 1 tech e-mail's me for some information. By the following Monday, all through email, no phone call yet, he ascertains that it is a system resource issue and I should check my system and environment logs. I told him that is why I am calling them and I would appreciate a call back by a level 2 tech. Here it is the 20th and I'm still waiting for my call back! Some service... Mark -Original Message- From: Mark Bertrand [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 10:00 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 5.1.6.2 is out I was not going to post to this message, but I found it SO surprising that I could not let it go by. snip If yur hold time with IBM is more than 5 minutes the operators are busy. If its more than minutes to get to the tech, then all the techs are busy. There are times that I have waited 15+ minutes, but this is rare.snip Wow, is this how everyone's support calls go? What number are you guys calling? When I call 1800 848 6548, I usually get to talk to a person right away that assigns a PMR, but usually end up waiting hours or days for a call back. Wow, 15 minutes, just wondering if this was the norm out there. Thanks, Mark B. -Original Message- From: Sias Dealy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 8:33 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: 5.1.6.2 is out Geoff, I know of a company that once lay off IBM hardware and software and went with another company. The first month or so everything seem to be fine. Then the hardware started to have some problems and then everyday there was a problem with the hardware. The hardware tech practically lived in the company. When calling in for support. The wait in the hold queue was about 15+ minutes just to get to the person to get your information and then it was another 20+ minutes to get to the tech. After a year the company went back to IBM. If yur hold time with IBM is more than 5 minutes the operators are busy. If its more than minutes to get to the tech, then all the techs are busy. There are times that I have waited 15+ minutes, but this is rare. In my shop we do not install the patches unless there is no work around. With patches you can solve one issue and introduce a new unknown issue. If we are not experiencing any problems we do not install any patch code. Maintence code is what we mostly upgrade to. Sias Get your own 800 number Voicemail, fax, email, and a lot more http://www.ureach.com/reg/tag On, Gill, Geoffrey L. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: This morning I've seen email asking us to lay off IBM. Does anyone have any further experience with any level of 5.1.6 that can convince anyone it's stable? Is anyone on 5.1.5x satified with that delivery? Is anyone who is on 5.1.6.0 satisfied with the delivery? Is anyone on 5.1.6.1 satisfied with that delivery? Is anyone ready to move to 5.1.6.2? Geoff Gill TSM Administrator NT Systems Support Engineer SAIC E-Mail:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: (858) 826-4062 Pager: (877) 905-7154 Confidentiality Note: The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to whom or which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you receive this in error, please delete this material immediately.
Re: 5.1.6.2 is out
Hi, I upgraded approx 3-4 weeks ago from 4.2.x to 5.1.6.0. (AIX 433 server) I had intermittently the node table access crashes everyone else did. IBM thought that had been fixed, and worked very diligently with me to get core dumps, and information to discover the problem. They called me shortly after to say that 5.1.6.1 was out and would fix my problem. I installed it right away, and the problem was fixed. I have always been very happy with IBM support - and I have never been left without at least a work-around until a patch was available. Compared to other software companies I deal with - IBM is a dream! Jane Bamberger Bassett Healthcare -Original Message- From: Gill, Geoffrey L. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 11:06 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: 5.1.6.2 is out This morning I've seen email asking us to lay off IBM. Does anyone have any further experience with any level of 5.1.6 that can convince anyone it's stable? Is anyone on 5.1.5x satified with that delivery? Is anyone who is on 5.1.6.0 satisfied with the delivery? Is anyone on 5.1.6.1 satisfied with that delivery? Is anyone ready to move to 5.1.6.2? Geoff Gill TSM Administrator NT Systems Support Engineer SAIC E-Mail:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: (858) 826-4062 Pager: (877) 905-7154
Re: AIX TSM Client and AFS/butc
Hi, Download the software and a README.INSTALL will be included in the software - and release notes for each app (ba,nas,api,afs) Jane Bassett Healthcare -Original Message- From: Chet Osborn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 6:20 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: AIX TSM Client and AFS/butc Hi, Two questions: 1) We've recently upgraded our TSM (AIX 4.3.3) server to v5.1.5.4. However, we're running the TSM 3.7.1 client on our AFS fileservers. I'd like to upgrade the client software of the AFS servers to 5.1.5, but can't find any relevant documentation. Anyone aware of any potential problems? 2) The TSM 5.1.5 client README.AFSDFS file states NOTE: The AFS/DFS versions of TSM executable files are only available for AIX. 4.3.X Is this just referring to removal of the dsmafs/dsmcafs client, or is there an AFS/butc problem upgrading to AIX 5.1? Chet Osborn Staff Systems Programmer Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Re: Backup fails when files fail
HI, I have Server 5.1.6 with most clients still at 4.2.x - and I still get the failed status, even when other files have backed up: -+ | (Backed Up Today) | (Stored on Server) | | Node| StatusElapsed Bytes(MB) | Files Data | Last Acc | +---+-+--| ADSMSRVR| Failed00:05:40 35.85 | 1521944088 MB | 1 | CWS01 | MissedN/A N/A | 22922246416 MB | 2| ORSRVR | MissedN/A N/A | 26809449184 MB | 2| RX | Failed00:00:26 3.32 | 1084714557 MB | 1 | RXSRVR | NoData08:35:38 .0492 | 1013031398 MB | 1| UTILSRVR| NoData04:07:25 .0411 | 1317040 15466 MB | 1 | -+ You can see that for my adsmsrvr - the status is failed - but 35 mb backed up. It is not the behavior I like - but I put the patch on when my server was at 4.2 and it still occurred. I had talked to level 2 support at the time and was told it was a requested feature - that admins had requested to know when a file failed to back up. I would love a solution to this - as my boss questions the failures all of the time. Jane Bassett Health Care -Original Message- From: Bernard Rosenbloom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 12:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Backup fails when files fail Andy, Glad you're on this discussion. I work for IBM and my colleagues and I were told months ago from level2 TSM support that reporting a backup as failed (in the TSM activity) as a result of an rc=4 (files open or not found) was a bug in 4.2.x and would be fixed. Andrew Raibeck wrote: You don't qualify what you mean by failed, but if you simply mean that the return code from dsmc was 4, then this is a new 5.1 feature, not a bug. See the Automating Tasks chapter in the 5.1 client manual for information on return codes from the command line client and their meanings. If you have any other questions on this, let me know. Andy Raibeck IBM Software Group Tivoli Storage Manager Client Development Internal Notes e-mail: Andrew Raibeck/Tucson/IBM@IBMUS Internet e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (change eye to i to reply) The only dumb question is the one that goes unasked. The command line is your friend. Good enough is the enemy of excellence. Thomas Denier [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/27/2003 14:47 Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Backup fails when files fail We have an HP-UX TSM client running 5.1.1.0 code. It connects to a 4.2.3.3 server running under OS/390. A 'dsmc incremental' command on the HP-UX system failed with an exit status of 4, apparently because three files failed with ANS1228E and ANS4045E (file not found) messages. I remember reading about this kind of behavior in Version 4 clients. Has Tivoli managed to resurrect this bug in Version 5?
Re: Backup fails when files fail
Hi, I think I might be having the problem because of the level of the client - I just put a client 5.1.58 on one aix J50 - and IY22308 - rebooted - and I get this when I issue a dsmc: root-cws01dsmc Tivoli Storage Manager *** Fixtest, Please see README file for more information *** Command Line Backup/Archive Client Interface - Version 5, Release 1, Level 5.8 (C) Copyright IBM Corporation 1990, 2002 All Rights Reserved. Do you know what the *** Fixtest means? I couldn't find anything in the readme. Jane -Original Message- From: Andrew Raibeck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 1:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Backup fails when files fail Hi Jane, For the problem nodes, what are the *exact* client versions they are running? If they are at 4.2.1.0, then they will exhibit the bug for skipped files. If you are running something other than 4.2.1.0, then check the dsmched.log and dsmerror.log files. If the backups are being reported as failed, it almost certainly has to be for some other reason. Note: if the client option QUIET is being used, it might not be a bad idea to comment it out so you can get more detail in the dsmsched.log file. Let me know what you find. Regards, Andy Andy Raibeck IBM Software Group Tivoli Storage Manager Client Development Internal Notes e-mail: Andrew Raibeck/Tucson/IBM@IBMUS Internet e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (change eye to i to reply) The only dumb question is the one that goes unasked. The command line is your friend. Good enough is the enemy of excellence. jane.bamberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/28/2003 11:17 Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: Backup fails when files fail HI, I have Server 5.1.6 with most clients still at 4.2.x - and I still get the failed status, even when other files have backed up: -+ | (Backed Up Today) | (Stored on Server) | | Node| StatusElapsed Bytes(MB) | Files Data | Last Acc | +---+-+--| ADSMSRVR| Failed00:05:40 35.85 | 1521944088 MB | 1 | CWS01 | MissedN/A N/A | 22922246416 MB | 2 | ORSRVR | MissedN/A N/A | 26809449184 MB | 2 | RX | Failed00:00:26 3.32 | 1084714557 MB | 1 | RXSRVR | NoData08:35:38 .0492 | 1013031398 MB | 1 | UTILSRVR| NoData04:07:25 .0411 | 1317040 15466 MB | 1 | -+ You can see that for my adsmsrvr - the status is failed - but 35 mb backed up. It is not the behavior I like - but I put the patch on when my server was at 4.2 and it still occurred. I had talked to level 2 support at the time and was told it was a requested feature - that admins had requested to know when a file failed to back up. I would love a solution to this - as my boss questions the failures all of the time. Jane Bassett Health Care -Original Message- From: Bernard Rosenbloom [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 12:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Backup fails when files fail Andy, Glad you're on this discussion. I work for IBM and my colleagues and I were told months ago from level2 TSM support that reporting a backup as failed (in the TSM activity) as a result of an rc=4 (files open or not found) was a bug in 4.2.x and would be fixed. Andrew Raibeck wrote: You don't qualify what you mean by failed, but if you simply mean that the return code from dsmc was 4, then this is a new 5.1 feature, not a bug. See the Automating Tasks chapter in the 5.1 client manual for information on return codes from the command line client and their meanings. If you have any other questions on this, let me know. Andy Raibeck IBM Software Group Tivoli Storage Manager Client Development Internal Notes e-mail: Andrew Raibeck/Tucson/IBM@IBMUS Internet e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (change eye to i to reply) The only dumb question is the one that goes unasked. The command line is your friend. Good enough is the enemy of excellence. Thomas Denier [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/27/2003 14:47 Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Backup fails when files fail We have an HP-UX TSM client running 5.1.1.0 code. It connects to a 4.2.3.3 server running under OS/390. A 'dsmc incremental' command on the HP-UX system failed with an exit status of 4, apparently because three files failed with ANS1228E and ANS4045E (file not found) messages. I remember reading
Re: Backup fails when files fail
Thanks - I have this on three non-production systems - so we will see how it goes - Hopefully it will solve all the error messages I keep getting on the clients. (see below) Even with a clean backup - I get the error: ANS1301E Server detected system error - and then a failed status. +11 01/28/03 00:19:48 Total number of objects inspected: 79,781 +12 01/28/03 00:19:48 Total number of objects backed up: 75 +13 01/28/03 00:19:48 Total number of objects updated: 0 +14 01/28/03 00:19:48 Total number of objects rebound: 0 +15 01/28/03 00:19:48 Total number of objects deleted: 0 +16 01/28/03 00:19:48 Total number of objects expired: 5 +17 01/28/03 00:19:48 Total number of objects failed: 0 +18 01/28/03 00:19:48 Total number of bytes transferred:35.85 MB +19 01/28/03 00:19:48 Data transfer time:1.38 sec +20 01/28/03 00:19:48 Network data transfer rate:26,590.52 KB/sec +21 01/28/03 00:19:48 Aggregate data transfer rate:107.68 KB/sec +22 01/28/03 00:19:48 Objects compressed by:0% +23 01/28/03 00:19:48 Elapsed processing time: 00:05:40 +24 01/28/03 00:19:48 --- SCHEDULEREC STATUS END +25 01/28/03 00:19:49 ANS1301E Server detected system error +26 +27 01/28/03 00:19:49 --- SCHEDULEREC OBJECT END ADSMSRVR-INCR 01/28/03 00:00:00 +28 01/28/03 00:19:49 +29 Executing Operating System command or script: +30 /usr/local/scripts/backup/process-logs.sh +31 01/28/03 00:19:52 Finished command. Return code is: +32 0 +33 01/28/03 00:19:53 ANS1512E Scheduled event 'ADSMSRVR-INCR' failed. Re turn code = 4. Jane -Original Message- From: Andrew Raibeck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 3:30 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Backup fails when files fail Fixtest (synonymous with patch) indicates that the code has not been fully tested. If your TSM version has a nonzero value in the 4th part of the version number (i.e. the '8' in '5.1.5.8') then it is a fixtest (or patch). The parts of the version number are as follows: 5 - Version number 1 - Release number 5 - PTF level 8 - Fixtest/patch level Major TSM releases will have new version and/or release numbers, i.e. 4.2, 5.1, etc. The first set of code for a release will have '0' for the PTF and fixtest/patch levels. Between releases, we issue scheduled maintenance in the form of a PTF, i.e. 5.1.1.0 and 5.1.5.0 are PTFs for the 5.1 release. Major releases and PTFs go through our full testing processes. Between PTFs, we issue fixtests to address high impact problems found between PTFs that can not wait until the next formal PTF or release. These usually under very little regression testing. In general, it is good practice to test out any new software on noncritical systems before rolling out to production. This is especially true for fixtests due to the limited testing that they receive. The *** Fixtest is just an eye-catch to let you know that you are indeed running a fixtest (which has had very little testing). Regards, Andy Andy Raibeck IBM Software Group Tivoli Storage Manager Client Development Internal Notes e-mail: Andrew Raibeck/Tucson/IBM@IBMUS Internet e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (change eye to i to reply) The only dumb question is the one that goes unasked. The command line is your friend. Good enough is the enemy of excellence. jane.bamberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/28/2003 12:57 Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: Backup fails when files fail Hi, I think I might be having the problem because of the level of the client - I just put a client 5.1.58 on one aix J50 - and IY22308 - rebooted - and I get this when I issue a dsmc: root-cws01dsmc Tivoli Storage Manager *** Fixtest, Please see README file for more information *** Command Line Backup/Archive Client Interface - Version 5, Release 1, Level 5.8 (C) Copyright IBM Corporation 1990, 2002 All Rights Reserved. Do you know what the *** Fixtest means? I couldn't find anything in the readme. Jane -Original Message- From: Andrew Raibeck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 1:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Backup fails when files fail Hi Jane, For the problem nodes, what are the *exact* client versions they are running? If they are at 4.2.1.0, then they will exhibit the bug for skipped files. If you are running something other than 4.2.1.0, then check the dsmched.log and dsmerror.log files. If the backups are being reported as failed, it almost certainly has to be for some other reason. Note: if the client option QUIET is being used, it might not be a bad idea to comment it out so you can get more detail in the dsmsched.log file. Let me know what
Re: Backup fails when files fail
Hi, There are just the same errors as is in the dsmsched.log. The error means that I am trying to back up a file that is explicitly excluded - and on 2 of the servers I do not even have an inclexcl file. I am doing an auditdb diskstorage tomorrow morning to fix another problem - so maybe this is related. Jane -Original Message- From: Andrew Raibeck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 4:09 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Backup fails when files fail Are there any other error messages in the dsmsched.log file between the time the backup started and the ending statistics? Any in the dsmerror.log file? How about in the server activity log? Regards, Andy Andy Raibeck IBM Software Group Tivoli Storage Manager Client Development Internal Notes e-mail: Andrew Raibeck/Tucson/IBM@IBMUS Internet e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (change eye to i to reply) The only dumb question is the one that goes unasked. The command line is your friend. Good enough is the enemy of excellence. jane.bamberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent by: ADSM: Dist Stor Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED] 01/28/2003 13:35 Please respond to ADSM: Dist Stor Manager To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject:Re: Backup fails when files fail Thanks - I have this on three non-production systems - so we will see how it goes - Hopefully it will solve all the error messages I keep getting on the clients. (see below) Even with a clean backup - I get the error: ANS1301E Server detected system error - and then a failed status. +11 01/28/03 00:19:48 Total number of objects inspected: 79,781 +12 01/28/03 00:19:48 Total number of objects backed up: 75 +13 01/28/03 00:19:48 Total number of objects updated: 0 +14 01/28/03 00:19:48 Total number of objects rebound: 0 +15 01/28/03 00:19:48 Total number of objects deleted: 0 +16 01/28/03 00:19:48 Total number of objects expired: 5 +17 01/28/03 00:19:48 Total number of objects failed: 0 +18 01/28/03 00:19:48 Total number of bytes transferred:35.85 MB +19 01/28/03 00:19:48 Data transfer time:1.38 sec +20 01/28/03 00:19:48 Network data transfer rate:26,590.52 KB/sec +21 01/28/03 00:19:48 Aggregate data transfer rate:107.68 KB/sec +22 01/28/03 00:19:48 Objects compressed by:0% +23 01/28/03 00:19:48 Elapsed processing time: 00:05:40 +24 01/28/03 00:19:48 --- SCHEDULEREC STATUS END +25 01/28/03 00:19:49 ANS1301E Server detected system error +26 +27 01/28/03 00:19:49 --- SCHEDULEREC OBJECT END ADSMSRVR-INCR 01/28/03 00:00:00 +28 01/28/03 00:19:49 +29 Executing Operating System command or script: +30 /usr/local/scripts/backup/process-logs.sh +31 01/28/03 00:19:52 Finished command. Return code is: +32 0 +33 01/28/03 00:19:53 ANS1512E Scheduled event 'ADSMSRVR-INCR' failed. Re turn code = 4. Jane
Tivoli Storage Resource Reporting
Hi, This CD came in our installation pack and a new Redbook was just released. Does anyone know if this is free in TSM 5.1? Has anyone used it? Is it worthwhile. Care to share experience? Jane Jane Bamberger IS Department Bassett Healthcare 607-547-4784
Trying new option to simultaneously write to backup and offsite copy pool
Hi, Last night I tried to use the new feature allowing me to copy to an offsite copy pool at the same time I did backups. One of my servers had 2 files fail to backup - and this caused my offsite copy to fail. Does anyone know why this is true? I hate the way a backup is deemed failed because 1 or 2 files don't back up... I was told this was a feature - but if it causes this behavior in the copy pool process- it is not a very good one. AIX 4.3.3 TSM 5.1.6.0 TSM 4.2.0 - AIX Client 01/23/03 22:34:06 ANR0406I Session 4350 started for node RXSRVR (AIX) (Tcp/Ip 10.1.128.19(51506)). 01/24/03 02:21:34 ANE4005E (Session: 4350, Node: RXSRVR) Error processing '/var/adm/SPlogs/filec/sup01.22.2003.23.10': file not found 01/24/03 02:21:36 ANE4005E (Session: 4350, Node: RXSRVR) Error processing '/var/adm/SPlogs/filec/sup01.22.2003.23.10r': file not found 01/24/03 02:21:58 ANR4734W Copy storage pool OFFSITE_COPY was removed from the copy storage pool list because of a failure for session 4350. 01/24/03 02:24:19 ANR0403I Session 4350 ended for node RXSRVR (AIX). I'd appreciate any help. Jane Jane Bamberger IS Department Bassett Healthcare 607-547-4784
Re: Finding out if expiration process is brand new of finishing another one that was canceled
Hi, According to TSM Support - the expiration will pick up from right where it left off the last session - but I am not sure I believe it - we had 125 scratch tapes fill up rapidly because expiration was not completing every day. Jane -Original Message- From: PAC Brion Arnaud [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 5:44 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Finding out if expiration process is brand new of finishing another one that was canceled Hi *SM'ers Does anybody know if there is a possibility to check if a running expiration process is finishing the work of a previous one that had to be canceled, or if it is a brand new one that has just began a full scan from TSM DB. I need that info to build a script that basically would restart the expire inventory process, case it should have been aborted prematurely (because of log full condition, see that post : http://msgs.adsm.org/cgi-bin/get/adsm0301/673.html), but not start a full new one (not really clear, I know , but I have kind of a restricted english vocabulary, sorry for that !) Thanks for your advices. Cheers. Arnaud =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= | Arnaud Brion, Panalpina Management Ltd., IT Group | | Viaduktstrasse 42, P.O. Box, 4002 Basel - Switzerland | | Phone: +41 61 226 19 78 / Fax: +41 61 226 17 01 | =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Re: upgrade tivoli from 4.2 to 5.1.5 on AIX
HI, I just upgraded AIX 4.3.3 to TSM 5.1.6 Yes - TSM can run on AIX 433, and there is instructions in the manual that state the upgrade to TSM 5 should be installed before AIX 5, and no you shouldn't have to deinstall The steps are simple - install (this performs an upgrade DB). Then register the licenses. The only problem that I could see with the library (3494) is that it jumped ahead 2 hours from the TSM server - causing weird behavior with checkins and checkouts until I reset the time. Jane % Bassett Healthcare -Original Message- From: Roger Ward [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 2:16 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: upgrade tivoli from 4.2 to 5.1.5 on AIX Hello all, I have a several questions regarding upgrading tivoli 4.2.1 to 5.1.5 on AIX 4.3?? 1) Can tivoli 5.1.5 run on AIX 4.3---I am guessing this would work but leads to my other questions. 2) If I upgrade tivoli on current AIX 4.3.3 what happens when I want to upgrade my AIX 4.3.3 to AIX 5.1?? 3) Do I need to de-install tivoli at that point?? 4) Anything I should be careful of either then tape library and drive definitions?? A little confusing but the gist is::-- Should I upgrade AIX operating system first?? Thanks, Roger
Re: Exclude Statements
On NT - they are in one file - on Aix - there is a dsm.opt,dsm.sys (indicating the name of the INCLEXCL file - and the inclexcl file itself. Jane %%% Bassett Healthcare -Original Message- From: Andrews, Bert A [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2003 10:16 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Exclude Statements Hi, Should the exclude statements be in the dsm.sys or in a exclude file separate on a public directory for aix? What is the syntax? exclude/.../unix/../ exclude/.../core/../ exclude/.../.SpaceMan/.../* exclude.fs /.../u01/.../* exclude.fs /.../u02/.../* exclude.fs /.../u03/.../* exclude.fs /.../u04/.../*
